4 ms·

Your argument is the appeal to nature [1]. Sure, there is evidence for the healthiness of different kinds of fats, but that some are "natural" while others are

Your argument is the appeal to nature [1]. Sure, there is evidence for the healthiness of different kinds of fats, but that some are "natural" while others are "processed" isn't a valid reason itself. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
As I said: >While that's not conlclusive in itself there has actualy been a lot of research on polyunsaturated fatty acids lately with worrying results. I don't see why you've put quotes around the word "natural" as I didn't use this word. I also never said the being processed is why vegetable oil is bad, only that it's necessity precludes it from having been consumed by humans historicaly speaking. The apeal to nature argument is that something that exists naturaly is good. My arguemt is that since food consumption is a primary driver of evolution, foods consumed by a species are generaly better for that species than a random food. You can say that one class of argumet contains the other but it's a meaningless statement for our discussion. And as I said much research as already been done on this subject in the last two decades.
- feet 4y ago
  Can you post the research articles covering PUFAs? Your conclusion is surprising considering omega3 and 6 fatty acids, both PUFAs, are essential for the human diet
  - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27251151/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27251151/ Some passages: >More direct evidence demonstrating that canola oil and soybean oil - 2 major vegetable oils consumed worldwide - differ in their effects on markers of DM in rats is shown in figure 25. In the figure 25, the 19C (19% canola oil) group showed higher insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) and more damage to pancreas β-cells than the 19S (19% soybean oil) and 7S (control) groups. The 19C group presented lower percentage of pancreatic islets area in comparison to 19S (-41%) and 7S group (-70%, p < 0.0001) [51]. DM patients in Japan are characterized by exhibiting both insulin resistance and impaired insulin secretion. This animal study is the first to demonstrate that a common vegetable oil, accounting for more than 40% of vegetable fats and oils consumed in Japan, impaired pancreatic function to secrete insulin. Similarly, these 2 vegetable oils differentially affected oxidative stress-related enzymes in erythrocytes and vascular properties in the SHRSP rat [52]. >Despite the palatability of palm oil, its safety has not been established even though many articles from exporting countries emphasize its safety. For example, palm oil unusually promotes mutagen-induced colon carcinogenesis comparable to high-linoleic safflower oil, using perilla oil as a control (fig. 31) [61]. The difference in the rate of carcinogenesis between perilla oil and safflower oil has been explained in terms of the n-6/n-3 balance and the established concept of the arachidonic acid (ARA) cascade promoting carcinogenesis. However, given that the linoleic acid content of palm oil is very low, unidentified minor components must be responsible for the unusual cancer-promoting activity observed. Similarly, olive oil increased mutagen-induced aberrant cryptic foci in rats [62], and the involvement of minor components in olive oil is suspected given that oleic-rich safflower oil with a fatty acid composition similar to that of olive oil does not promote carcinogenesis [63]. >Fig. 31 >Unusual cancer-promoting activities of palm oil and olive oil in animal experiments. Data for palm oil (left) are from Narisawa et al. [61] and those for olive oil (right) are from Onogi et al. [62]. Refer to figure 22 for the fatty acid composition of vegetable oils used. In the left figure, * p < 0.01 vs. other groups. In the right figure, * p < 0.05 and * p < 0.01 vs. olive oil group. http://www.karger.com/WebMaterial/ShowPic/509075 http://www.karger.com/WebMaterial/ShowPic/509075 >In addition to its cancer-promoting activity (fig. 31), palm oil was shown to shorten the survival of mice [64] and induce hyper-insulinemia in rats [65]. We strongly argue, therefore, that increasing the supply of palm oil as an alternative to industrial trans-fat is not a safe path to take. Regarding your point about omega 3 and 6: yes, they are necessary, but that doesn't make vegatable oil "good." Additionaly, there may be too much omega 6 in many vegetable oils: >thus, it is not the saturated to polyunsaturated ratio but the n-6/n-3 ratio of dietary lipids that is crucial for the prevention of CVD, DM and several other elderly onset diseases [39,58,70] as Bibus and Lands [94] recently reviewed. Currently, people in industrialized countries generally ingest several-fold more linoleic acid than is essential (0.5% of energy) and the intake of n-3 fatty acids is relatively deficient. The more than 3-fold higher CHD mortality in the US as compared to Japan is likely to be due to the higher n-6/n-3 balance of ingested foods in the US.
    - feet 4y ago
      The literature I've seen has also discussed the omega6-3 ratio, which I personally use flax oil to balance so I would agree that is probably an important factor. However none of what you've posted here says "polyunsaturated fats are bad". The statement I responded to is a gross mischaracterization which lacks the nuance that PUFAs are important for the diet, but the amount we consume them in is what's important. I keep seeing people shouting about how PUFAs are all bad, but that's actually entirely wrong when the statement is taken at face value
      - hirundo 4y ago
        The criticisms I've seen come with an awareness that PUFAs exist in animal fats too, and are virtually unavoidable and healthy in those smaller amounts and nutritional contexts. They argue that the dose makes the poison, and PUFA consumption has increased many-fold in the modern era causing a great fraction of metabolic syndrome and associated chronic diseases. I've found Peter Dobromylskyj particularly interesting on this topic: https://hyperlipid.blogspot.com/ https://hyperlipid.blogspot.com/
        feet 4y ago
        There's nothing on that website, unfortunately
        hirundo 4y ago
        Sorry: https://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/ https://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/
      - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
        As the sibling comment says, I'm not arguing that PUFAs are bad per se but that the reason why vegatable oils are bad is because of PUFAs, namely the n-3/n-6 ratio. So you are correct about my innitial comment: >One could reasonably phrase the question this way: what evidence is there that polyunsaturated fatty acids are healthy? This comment is not worded the best way. But I point out later what I meant: >Regarding your point about omega 3 and 6: yes, they are necessary, but that doesn't make vegatable oil "good." Additionaly, there may be too much omega 6 in many vegetable oils You are also technically correct in saying 'However none of what you've posted here says "polyunsaturated fats are bad"' as that includes my own comments, which never directly said polyunsaturated fats are bad, only that vegetable oil is bad. I admit that my innitial wording should have been better. >The statement I responded to is a gross mischaracterization which lacks the nuance that PUFAs are important for the diet, but the amount we consume them in is what's important. The statement you responded to does not mention PUFAs at all. In regards to my earlier comment, it is not a "gross mischaracterization" but semantics. That it "lacks the nuance" of qualifying the statement to "oils high in PUFAs" rather than PUFAs themselves is not relevant to the argument of whether vegetable oils are healthy compared to lard and meat, being that the latter two also have PUFAs. What is then meant is this: (Meat) protien is healthy even if one consumes 200g a day. protein itself is therefore healthy. Same can be said about some carbs. For an admittedly extream example, sodium is not healthy, and neither is cholride. When we say food x contains y amount of sodium we do not mean pure sodium. Since usual consumption of PUFAs found in vegetable oil exceeds a healthy ratio, it is reasonable to question the necessary assumption that "PUFAs are healthy" which is the entire extent to which I said 'PUFAs are bad' that is, not at all. This isn't as stong of a question when it comes to meat because taken as a whole it must be "healthy enough" as it is naturaly consumed by the species and also has lower concentrations to begin with. All this leads to the fact that when people talk about PUFAs, they are talking about vegetable oils, which is a misnomer technically spesking but that is how it has developed. But even not reading my statement that way it still does not read PUFAs are bad.
unequiv88 4y ago
You’re assuming a logical fallacy too easily. The frequency with which it’s found “natural” food is better for us is not to say only “natural” food is better, but it is a real trend, as such worth taking into consideration when making choices about what to eat.

Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago

As I said: >While that's not conlclusive in itself there has actualy been a lot of research on polyunsaturated fatty acids lately with worrying results. I don't see why you've put quotes around the word "natural" as I didn't use this word. I also never said the being processed is why vegetable oil is bad, only that it's necessity precludes it from having been consumed by humans historicaly speaking. The apeal to nature argument is that something that exists naturaly is good. My arguemt is that since food consumption is a primary driver of evolution, foods consumed by a species are generaly better for that species than a random food. You can say that one class of argumet contains the other but it's a meaningless statement for our discussion. And as I said much research as already been done on this subject in the last two decades.

feet 4y ago
Can you post the research articles covering PUFAs? Your conclusion is surprising considering omega3 and 6 fatty acids, both PUFAs, are essential for the human diet
- Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27251151/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27251151/ Some passages: >More direct evidence demonstrating that canola oil and soybean oil - 2 major vegetable oils consumed worldwide - differ in their effects on markers of DM in rats is shown in figure 25. In the figure 25, the 19C (19% canola oil) group showed higher insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) and more damage to pancreas β-cells than the 19S (19% soybean oil) and 7S (control) groups. The 19C group presented lower percentage of pancreatic islets area in comparison to 19S (-41%) and 7S group (-70%, p < 0.0001) [51]. DM patients in Japan are characterized by exhibiting both insulin resistance and impaired insulin secretion. This animal study is the first to demonstrate that a common vegetable oil, accounting for more than 40% of vegetable fats and oils consumed in Japan, impaired pancreatic function to secrete insulin. Similarly, these 2 vegetable oils differentially affected oxidative stress-related enzymes in erythrocytes and vascular properties in the SHRSP rat [52]. >Despite the palatability of palm oil, its safety has not been established even though many articles from exporting countries emphasize its safety. For example, palm oil unusually promotes mutagen-induced colon carcinogenesis comparable to high-linoleic safflower oil, using perilla oil as a control (fig. 31) [61]. The difference in the rate of carcinogenesis between perilla oil and safflower oil has been explained in terms of the n-6/n-3 balance and the established concept of the arachidonic acid (ARA) cascade promoting carcinogenesis. However, given that the linoleic acid content of palm oil is very low, unidentified minor components must be responsible for the unusual cancer-promoting activity observed. Similarly, olive oil increased mutagen-induced aberrant cryptic foci in rats [62], and the involvement of minor components in olive oil is suspected given that oleic-rich safflower oil with a fatty acid composition similar to that of olive oil does not promote carcinogenesis [63]. >Fig. 31 >Unusual cancer-promoting activities of palm oil and olive oil in animal experiments. Data for palm oil (left) are from Narisawa et al. [61] and those for olive oil (right) are from Onogi et al. [62]. Refer to figure 22 for the fatty acid composition of vegetable oils used. In the left figure, * p < 0.01 vs. other groups. In the right figure, * p < 0.05 and * p < 0.01 vs. olive oil group. http://www.karger.com/WebMaterial/ShowPic/509075 http://www.karger.com/WebMaterial/ShowPic/509075 >In addition to its cancer-promoting activity (fig. 31), palm oil was shown to shorten the survival of mice [64] and induce hyper-insulinemia in rats [65]. We strongly argue, therefore, that increasing the supply of palm oil as an alternative to industrial trans-fat is not a safe path to take. Regarding your point about omega 3 and 6: yes, they are necessary, but that doesn't make vegatable oil "good." Additionaly, there may be too much omega 6 in many vegetable oils: >thus, it is not the saturated to polyunsaturated ratio but the n-6/n-3 ratio of dietary lipids that is crucial for the prevention of CVD, DM and several other elderly onset diseases [39,58,70] as Bibus and Lands [94] recently reviewed. Currently, people in industrialized countries generally ingest several-fold more linoleic acid than is essential (0.5% of energy) and the intake of n-3 fatty acids is relatively deficient. The more than 3-fold higher CHD mortality in the US as compared to Japan is likely to be due to the higher n-6/n-3 balance of ingested foods in the US.
  - feet 4y ago
    The literature I've seen has also discussed the omega6-3 ratio, which I personally use flax oil to balance so I would agree that is probably an important factor. However none of what you've posted here says "polyunsaturated fats are bad". The statement I responded to is a gross mischaracterization which lacks the nuance that PUFAs are important for the diet, but the amount we consume them in is what's important. I keep seeing people shouting about how PUFAs are all bad, but that's actually entirely wrong when the statement is taken at face value
    - hirundo 4y ago
      The criticisms I've seen come with an awareness that PUFAs exist in animal fats too, and are virtually unavoidable and healthy in those smaller amounts and nutritional contexts. They argue that the dose makes the poison, and PUFA consumption has increased many-fold in the modern era causing a great fraction of metabolic syndrome and associated chronic diseases. I've found Peter Dobromylskyj particularly interesting on this topic: https://hyperlipid.blogspot.com/ https://hyperlipid.blogspot.com/
      - feet 4y ago
        There's nothing on that website, unfortunately
        hirundo 4y ago
        Sorry: https://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/ https://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/
    - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
      As the sibling comment says, I'm not arguing that PUFAs are bad per se but that the reason why vegatable oils are bad is because of PUFAs, namely the n-3/n-6 ratio. So you are correct about my innitial comment: >One could reasonably phrase the question this way: what evidence is there that polyunsaturated fatty acids are healthy? This comment is not worded the best way. But I point out later what I meant: >Regarding your point about omega 3 and 6: yes, they are necessary, but that doesn't make vegatable oil "good." Additionaly, there may be too much omega 6 in many vegetable oils You are also technically correct in saying 'However none of what you've posted here says "polyunsaturated fats are bad"' as that includes my own comments, which never directly said polyunsaturated fats are bad, only that vegetable oil is bad. I admit that my innitial wording should have been better. >The statement I responded to is a gross mischaracterization which lacks the nuance that PUFAs are important for the diet, but the amount we consume them in is what's important. The statement you responded to does not mention PUFAs at all. In regards to my earlier comment, it is not a "gross mischaracterization" but semantics. That it "lacks the nuance" of qualifying the statement to "oils high in PUFAs" rather than PUFAs themselves is not relevant to the argument of whether vegetable oils are healthy compared to lard and meat, being that the latter two also have PUFAs. What is then meant is this: (Meat) protien is healthy even if one consumes 200g a day. protein itself is therefore healthy. Same can be said about some carbs. For an admittedly extream example, sodium is not healthy, and neither is cholride. When we say food x contains y amount of sodium we do not mean pure sodium. Since usual consumption of PUFAs found in vegetable oil exceeds a healthy ratio, it is reasonable to question the necessary assumption that "PUFAs are healthy" which is the entire extent to which I said 'PUFAs are bad' that is, not at all. This isn't as stong of a question when it comes to meat because taken as a whole it must be "healthy enough" as it is naturaly consumed by the species and also has lower concentrations to begin with. All this leads to the fact that when people talk about PUFAs, they are talking about vegetable oils, which is a misnomer technically spesking but that is how it has developed. But even not reading my statement that way it still does not read PUFAs are bad.

unequiv88 4y ago

You’re assuming a logical fallacy too easily. The frequency with which it’s found “natural” food is better for us is not to say only “natural” food is better, but it is a real trend, as such worth taking into consideration when making choices about what to eat.